CHAPTER 7. CONTINUITY AND CHANGE: LABOURERS’ LIVES IN WORCESTERSHIRE 1830-1841 Since the Last Labourers’ Revolt was the inevitable outcome of agricultural labourers’ experiences between 1815 and 1829, the decade that followed was perhaps best explained by linking the consequences of the uprising, both nationally and in Worcestershire, to the themes chosen for this study. After the Revolt was over, contemporaries in rural areas tried their best to explain why it had taken place and what the remedies should be. In Billenge’s study of Wiltshire, the Revolt was attributed to a number of factors: the operation of the Old Poor Law, the July revolution in France that ousted Charles X, the presence of Henry Hunt spreading radical ideas in the county, newly legalised beer shops and the lack of land for labourers to cultivate.1 Similarly a series of letters to Berrow’s Worcester Journal - On the Sufferings of the Rural Peasantry, published between March and April 1832, suggested that other factors were more important than the use of agricultural machinery, particularly a growing rural population, the Laws of Settlement, low rates of pay and the increased cost of poor relief. Rather perceptively, the author, known only by the initials E.T.A., argued that the root of the problem lay in the miserable condition of the agricultural day-labourer rather than any changes in the working conditions of farm-servants. The day labourer’s particular problem was that his weekly earnings were low and were no longer supplemented adequately by those of his wife and children.2 E.T.A’s main concern, however, was that the Revolt demonstrated that the order and well-being of society was in danger and that one of the first duties of those benefiting from the 1832 Reform Bill was to do something about it.3 He suggested that no amount of education or Sunday school teaching would ensure that labourers would behave like good Christians if they all lacked ‘the common necessaries of life’.4 That said, in his final letter, E.T.A. painted a Malthusian picture of the countryside of the future. Dealing with an imaginary parish, presumably based on his own, E.T.A. wrote that its population 1 Billenge, ‘Rural Crime and Protest in Wiltshire’, 160 –170. 2 WCRO: BA/3762/ Foley Scrapbook 11c: 383-385. E.T.A. (thought to be a local landowner Thomas Hawkswood) On the Sufferings of the Rural Peasantry. 3 This was no more than a general comment. It seemed unlikely that those who gained the vote in urban areas would be particularly interested in the well-being of agricultural labourers. 4 WCRO: BA/3762/ Foley Scrapbook 11c, On the Sufferings of the Rural Peasantry, Letter 1: 383. 236 had increased from 368 in 1805 to 460 in 1831, with no ‘emigration and no migration’. He then presented his readers with a speculative nightmare vision of small parishes in the future having to raise poor rates substantially in order to house and support several hundred paupers.5 At a national level, the pamphleteer and future colonialist, Edward Gibbon Wakefield, presented his own analysis. It began by describing the rural labourer to the reading public in the worst of stereotypes: What is that defective being, with calfless legs and stooping shoulders, weak in body and mind, inert, pusillaminous, and stupid, whose premature wrinkles and furtive glances tell of misery and degradation. That is our English peasant or pauper; for the words are synonymous. For Gibbon Wakefield the typical agricultural labourer lived on bad food, was half-clothed, worked in the cold and wet and was driven into early marriage by the Poor Laws. This stereotypical labourer lived in a hovel, was unable to support his family, pilfered from others and taught his children to lie and steal. Gibbon Wakefield also believed that, though subdued and slavish towards his betters, the English labourer actually dreaded and hated them, although he would never resort to violence against them. He then went on to analyse the cause of the Last Labourers’ Revolt and, shifting his emphasis, placed the blame principally on landowners and the poor rates. Landowners were attacked for enclosing commons and wastes and for breeding pheasants, which encouraged poaching. He accused them of keeping wages low and encouraging low wages to be supplemented from the poor rates. Landowners demoralised labourers even further by attacking what limited pleasures they had in their lives, such as alehouses, skittles and fairs.6 To all these causes, Gibbon Wakefield proposed solutions. Dismissing charitable soup kitchens and the distribution of religious tracts, saying the poor only used them to boil their own kettles with, Gibbon Wakefield suggested some cynical and witty 5 WCRO: BA/3762/ Foley Scrapbook 11c, On the Sufferings of the Rural Peasantry, Letter 7: 385. 6 Wakefield, Swing Unmasked: 9-16. Wakefield’s publication, in keeping with good polemic, was structured in such a way to make his final points particularly sharp and succinct. 237 possibilities, hanging, moral education, increasing wages and taxing landlords and parsons more heavily. His main conclusion was that only those in power could remove the miseries that had caused the unrest in the first place.7 Given that almost everyone had a view about the events of 1830-31, much was expected of the Select Committee on Agriculture that took evidence between 1831 and 1833. The Committee, however, appeared highly prejudiced since it questioned witnesses with a number of possible causations in mind. These included most of the factors mentioned by E.T.A. and Edward Gibbon Wakefield, plus the potential impact of grain prices, changing land use, the Corn Laws, tithes and the gentrification of farmers. Two witnesses from Worcestershire gave evidence about the state of farming in the county in 1831, and the condition and mood of farm labourers. William Woodward, the first witness, stated that he farmed 1,100 to 1,200 acres in partnership with his two sons.8 He was also land agent for Sir John Sebright and for the Dean and Chapter of Worcester Cathedral. He told the committee that Worcestershire was predominantly a county of small farmers and freeholders and that neither group was employing as many labourers as they had during the Napoleonic War years. Nevertheless, Woodward claimed that most labourers in the county were living in comfortable cottages and had well-cultivated gardens.9 The second witness, Joseph Stallard, was also a large farmer, with 645 acres in Red Marley. He claimed that labourers were only worse off in poor soil areas, and that labourers in most parts of Worcestershire were better clothed than they had been thirty-years previously, ate wheaten bread and could afford to keep pigs. Stallard accepted that more labourers were unemployed, but believed that this situation was perfectly manageable provided the ‘idle and undeserving’ were sent to the workhouse. He did, however, accept that some wealthier farmers were aping the gentry and were not so close to their labourers as they had been twenty or thirty years before.10 7 Wakefield, Swing Unmasked: 46. 8 Woodward did not say where his farms were, but there were Woodwards at Upper Arley, close to Sir John Sebright’s estate at nearby Wolverley. 9 BPP, Agriculture, Volume 2, Select Committee on Agriculture 1833. Evidence of William Woodward and Joseph Stallard: 83-91. 10 BPP, Agriculture, Volume 2, Select Committee on Agriculture 1833: 487-493. 238 Yet, while the evidence of Woodward and Stallard seemed convincing, it was not necessarily representative since both men farmed exceptionally large acreages and were untypical of the majority of Worcestershire farmers. Stallard, in particular, farmed in the extreme south of the county and was unlikely to have had much intimate knowledge of agricultural areas to the north and west. He appeared to have been chosen as a witness because he came from one of the two parishes in Worcestershire where a threshing machine had been destroyed by local labourers. Woodward, on the other hand, was probably called as a witness because as well as being a substantial farmer, his role as a land agent for the Dean and Chapter of Worcester Cathedral should have given him some insight into farming conditions across the county, albeit at second hand. He may also have been chosen as representing the views of both the landed gentry and the Anglican Church. While the Committee took evidence, some landowners, Magistrates and clergy in Worcestershire tried to improve the situation of local labourers in order to discourage future unrest. Much publicity was given to attempts from 1832 onwards to provide local labourers with allotments. In March 1832, for example, the Earl of Harrowby gave roods and half roods of land to forty families at Bishampton for gardens,11 and the Reverend T. Miller of Bocklehampton, near Tenbury Wells, was providing allotments of up to a quarter of an acre for local villagers.12 Allotments, however, often came with conditions attached that encouraged deference and appeared patronising. Under the Reverend Miller’s Bockleton scheme, labourers had to apply for an allotment and agree to keep a quarter of it fallow each year. Allotments also cost six shillings a year to rent and holders had to make a contribution towards the poor rates. There were also strict conditions about how much land could be allocated to potatoes and how many inches should separate each row of crops.13 Mr. Holland’s scheme at Cropthorne limited the amount of 11 WH: March 3rd 1832. The Worcester Herald was particularly effusive about the Earl of Harrowby’s scheme and recommended allotments as, ‘an efficient mode of relieving the distress and regaining the affections of the rural population’.